Karnataka High Court
The Golden Valley Educational Trust vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2013
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.No.27099/2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
OORGUM, K.G.F. 563 121,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DR. T.THIMMAIAH. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: SAMPATH KUMAR.B.K, ADV.)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
2.THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
3.THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
4.ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
5. SRI.S.SUNDARESH,
S/O LATE SRI.SURYA NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.328, 1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD,
7TH BLOCK WEST, JAYANAGAR,
2
BANGALORE-82.
6. VOKKALIGARA SANGHA,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
K.R.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 004. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: H.KANTHARAJ, ADDL.AG A/W
SRI.ANANTHA.H., HCGP FOR R1-R4,
SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR R5,
SRI.SHIVA REDDY FOR SRI.G.GANGI REDDY, ADV.
FOR R6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO RESUME THE LAND BEARING
SY.NO.129 MEASURING 15 ACRES OF SREEGANDADA
KAVALU AND CREATE THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TILL THE
DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BEARING APPEAL NO.413/2010
ANNX-F DT.9.8.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has initially sought the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to resume the land bearing Sy.No.129 measuring 15 acres of Sreegandada Kavalu and create third party rights till the disposal of the Appeal bearing Appeal No.413/2010 Annexure-F dated 09/08/2012 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 3
b) Grant the costs of the proceedings
c) Grant such other relief, reliefs and orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
Thereafter, by an amendment, the petitioner has sought the following additional prayer:
"d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any writ order or direction quashing the Government order No.RD 363 LGX 2012, marked as Annexure-H, allotting 4.00 acres of land in Sreegandada Kavalu, Yashwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of S.Sundaresh."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally granted by way of a lease, 15 acres of land in Sy.No.51 of Sreegandada Kavalu, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for educational purpose. The grant of lease was for a period of thirty years under Government Order dated 12/01/1967. By a subsequent Government Order dated 20/01/2010, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E, it is stated that the lease has come to an end and that steps would be taken in respect that land. 4 Government Order dated 20/01/2010 is a subject matter of Appeal No.413/2010 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short). Along with the memorandum of appeal, an application for stay of the operation of the Government Order dated 20/01/2010 was also filed before the Tribunal. The application for stay was rejected by order dated 12/09/2010. It is an admitted fact that the appeal is pending before the Tribunal as on today and that the dismissal of the application for stay by order dated 12/09/2010 has not been assailed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner had sought certain directions against the respondents as extracted supra in respect of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the State Government is stated to have taken possession of the land in question and 4acres of the said land is stated to have been granted by way of an alternative grant to one Sri.Sundaresh, by a Government Order dated 22/04/2013, a copy of which has been produced at Annnexure-H along with the application for amendment of the writ petition. 5 The said order is assailed by way of an amended prayer made to the writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Addl. Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents have objected to the very maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioner seeking the aforesaid prayers. It is mainly contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General that as the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20/01/2010 passed by the State Government and it is also a subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, any protective order, could have been sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal rather than maintaining parallel proceedings before the Tribunal as well as this Court. It is, therefore, contended that the initial prayers made in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court.
5. As far as the amended prayer, which is a challenge made to the order dated 24/01/2013, which is at Annexure-H is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the said order of grant made to one 6 Sri.Sundaresh is subsequent to the coming to an end of the lease with the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot assail that order by maintaining a writ petition before this Court. It is thus contended that the aforesaid prayers cannot be granted to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I find that there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents insofar as the initial prayer sought by the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be granted by this Court at this stage, particularly when Appeal No.413/2010 is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek any interim prayer in respect of land in question pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal itself.
7. The challenge made to the Government Order dated 22/04/2013 cannot be considered along with the initial prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition for the simple reason that it is a separate cause of action as far as the petitioner is concerned and its inclusion in the writ petition would result in misjoinder of causes of action. 7 Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to independently challenge the said order in case it has the locus standi to do so and if the petitioner is, so advised.
8. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
a) As far as initial prayer of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to seek any protective orders pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal itself.
b) As far as the challenge made to Annexure-H Government Order dated 22/04/2013 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to independently challenge the said order in case it is able to establish the locus standi to do so.
In view of the disposal of the writ petition in the aforesaid terms, all pending applications would not survive for consideration in this writ petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*